Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/39

 JERUSALEM. signed to various uses. The Pronaus was, however, 30 cubit.s wider, 15 on the north, and 15 on the south, giving it a total length of lUO cubits, which, with a width of only 1 1 cubits, must have pre- sented the proportions of a Narthex in a Byzantine church. Its interior height was 90 cubits, and, while the chambers on the sides of the Temple rose only to the height of 60 cubits, there was an ad- ditional story of 40 cubits above the Sanctuary, also occupied by chambers, rising into a clerestory of the same elevation as the vestibule. The front of the Temple was plated with gold, and reflected back the beams of the rising sun with dazzling effect; and, where it was not encrusted with gold, it was exceedingly white. Some of the stones of which it was constructed were 45 cubits long, 5 deep, and C wide. East of the Altar was the Court of the Priests, 135 cubits long and 11 wide; and, east of that again, was the Court of Israel, of the same dimen- sions. East of this was the Court of the Women, 135 cubits square, considerably below the level of the former, to which there was an ascent of 15 semicircular steps to the magnificent gates of Corin- thian brass, 50 cubits in height, with doors of 40 cubits, so ponderous that they could with diffi- culty be shut by 20 men, the spontaneous open- ing of which was one of the portents of the ap- pniaching destruction of the Temple, mentioned by Josephus {Bell. Jitd. vi. 5. § 3), and repeated by Tacitus {Hist. v. 13). Thus much must suffice for this most venerated seat of the Hebrew worship from the age of Solomon until the final destruction of the Jewish polity. But, in order to complete the survey, it will be necessary to notice the Acropolis, which occupied the north- west angle of the Temple enclosure, and which was, says the historian, the fortress of the Temple, as the Temple was of the city. Its original name was Baris, until Herod the Great, having greatly en- larged and beautified it, changed its name to Antonia, in honour of his friend Mark Antony. It combined the strength of a castle with the magnificence of a palace, and was like a city in extent, — comprehend- ing within its walls not only spacious apartments, but courts and camping ground for soldiers. It was situated on an elevated rock, which was faced with slabs of smooth stone, upon which was raised a breastwork of 3 cubits high, within which was the building, rising to a height of 40 cubits. It had turrets at its four corners, three of them 50 cubits high, but that at the south-east angle was 70 cubits, and commanded a view of the whole Temple. It communicated with the northern and western cloisters of the Temple at the angle of the area, by flights of steps for the convenience of the garrison which usually occupied this commanding position ; and it is a re- markable and interesting coincidence, that the site of the official residence of the Eoman procurator and his guard is now occupied by the Seraiyah, or official residence of the Turkish Pasha and his guard: fur there can be no question of the identity of the site, since the native rock here, as atHippicus, still remains to attest the fidelity of the Jewish historian. The rock is here " cut perpendicularly to an extent of 20 feet in some parts; whUe witliin the area also, in the direction of tlie Mosk, a considerable portion of the rock has been cut away " to the general level of the enclosure (Bartlett, Walks about Jerusalem, pp. 156, 174, 175); so that the 5firay/o^, or govern- ment house, actually " rests upon a precipice of JERUSALEM. 23 rock which formeriy swept down abruptly, and has obviously been cut away to foi-m the level below which also bears marks of having been scariied." The fortress was protected towards Bezetha by an artificial fosse, so as to prevent its foundations from being assailed from that quarter. This fosse has only lately been filled in. It is certain, from several passages, that the for- tress Antonia did not cover the whole of the northern front of the Temjile area; and, as the second wall, that encircled the Lower City, ended at the fortress, it is clear that this wall could not have coincided with the modern wall at the north-east quarter of the modern city. It is demonstrable, from several allusions and historical notices, that there must have been a considerable space between the second and third wall on the nortiiern front of the Temple area. (Williams, JIolij City, vol. ii. pp. 348—353.) V. History. The ancient history of Jerusalem may be con- veniently divided into four periods. 1. The Ca- naanitidi, or Amorite. 2. The Hebrew, or Ante- Bal)ylonian. 3. The Jewish, or Post-Babylonian. 4. The Roman, or classical. 1. Of these, the first may claim the fullest notice here, as the sources of information concerning it are much less generally known or read than those of the later priods, and anything that relates to the remote history of that venerable city cannot but bo full of interest to the antiquarian, no less than to the Christian student. It has been said that the learned are divided in opinion as to the identity of the Salem of Melchi- zedek with the Jerusalem of Sacred History. The writer of a very learned and interesting Review of the Second P^dition of the Holy City, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer (vul.xviii. October, 1849), may be said to have demonstrated that iden- tity by a close critical analysis of all the passages in which the circumstances are alluded to; and has further shown it to be highly ])robable that this patriarch was identical, not with Shem, as has been sometimes supposed, but with Heber, the son of Peleg, from whom the land of Canaan had obtained the name of the " land of the Hebrews" or Heberites, as early as the days of Joseph's deportation to Egypt. {Gtn. xl. 15.) But the elucidation which the early histoiy of Jerusalem receives from the monuments of Egypt is extremely important and valuable, as relating to a period which is passed over in silence by the sacred historian; and these notices are well collected and arranged in the review referred to, being borrowed from Mr. Osbum's very interesting work entitled ^S'JPt^ fi^i' Testimony to the Tntih. After citing some monuments of Sethos, and Sesostris his son, relating to the Jebusites, the writer proceeds : — " What glimpses, then, do we obtain, if any, of the existence of such a city as Jerusalem during the recorded period ? Under that name, of course, we must not expect to find it; since even in the days of Joshua and the Judges it is so called by anticipation. {Holy City, vol. i. p. 3, note.) But there is a city which stands forth with a very marked and peculiar prominence in these wars of the kings of Egypt with the Jebusites, Amorites, and neighbouring nations. We meet with it first as a fortress of the Amorites. Sethos II. is engaged in besieging it. It is situated on a hill, and strengthened with two tiers of ram- parts. The inscription sets forth that it is in the C 4